Immigration Bill Sent Home
The Immigration Bill has been killed. At least the comprehensive immigration bill has been killed.
Just got off CNN with Paul Begala who got on one of his rants about how great Bill Clinton was and how awful George W. Bush is when I pointed out that the vote to kill the bill was 46 - 53 with 15 DEMOCRATS voting against.
If Majority Leader Harry Reid had been able to keep his troops in line and not have 30% of his caucus defect, the vote would have been 61 - 38. Enough to keep it alive.
Paul was unmoved by this but was moved when I pointed out that the argument "this was going to hurt the GOP in the long run because Hispanics were going to defect to the Democrats" is flawed because, unlike the Black vote which is a solid bloc, the Hispanic vote is most certainly not.
If you want to see which Senator voted click here to go to the Senate webpage.
Just got off CNN with Paul Begala who got on one of his rants about how great Bill Clinton was and how awful George W. Bush is when I pointed out that the vote to kill the bill was 46 - 53 with 15 DEMOCRATS voting against.
If Majority Leader Harry Reid had been able to keep his troops in line and not have 30% of his caucus defect, the vote would have been 61 - 38. Enough to keep it alive.
Paul was unmoved by this but was moved when I pointed out that the argument "this was going to hurt the GOP in the long run because Hispanics were going to defect to the Democrats" is flawed because, unlike the Black vote which is a solid bloc, the Hispanic vote is most certainly not.
If you want to see which Senator voted click here to go to the Senate webpage.
posted by Rich Galen | 3:23 PM
12 Comments:
About the Senate vote, it was a victory for US. It was a defeat of the McCain-Kennedy stab at immigration.
BTW ... it looks like the "Fairness Doctrine" is the next big challenge. We have to get that one right, too.
What is it about the phrase "illegal aliens" that's so hard for some to understand? I understand the reasoning of the moveon.org faction of the Dems, that they're another fragment of our society that can be bought and played against other fragments for political advantage, but the fact remains they're illegal aliens and NOT undocumented workers or migrant laborers or any of the other politically correct labels that might be applied to them. No matter how upstanding they might be while living and working here, it's nevertheless true that they have broken the law as their first act in entering and remaining in this country. They have no rights, apart from basic human rights, but those we choose to give them.
I have fewer problems with the truly "undocumented" illegal aliens, since the crime of being here illegally is a simple misdemeanor. I am more concerned about the fraudulently documented illegal aliens, who are felons by virtue of carrying and using the forged documents.
I am furious at government at all levels for: failing to manage the border; failing to provide the tools necessary for employers to instantly check the status of applicants for employment; operating "sanctuary cities"; establishing "day labor" shelters; issuing drivers licenses to illegals; "catch and release"; and, a host of other insane policies.
joan's correct about the Fairness Doctrine... if Hillary wins and the Dems maintain control, Talk Radio as we know it is dead... only the internet will be left.
And Dave's got it right. I don't purport to be a brain, but I have had what I believe to be an original thought: "A computer hooked to the internet is the most powerful tool for personal freedom since the invention of the firearm."
I was not particularly surprised this morning to see that the New York Times, which at the outset referred glowingly to the immigration proposal as a two-party deal (Senators in Bipartisan Deal on Immigration Bill, NY Times, May 18, 2007) and praised Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy's statesmanship and influence, now highlights that the “Bush immigration bill” has been solidly defeated. In today’s front page story, you didn’t even see that Kennedy played a key role until deep into the story. It reminds me of when Bill Keller, the N.Y. Times' Executive Editor, came to speak in Portland and heralded how his paper had no political agenda and was as balanced as could be. I was tempted to stand up and ask him if he ever read his own paper.
Take a look at the initial part of the NY Times story from today's (June 29) paper and ask yourself if the treatment is balanced:
Immigrant Bill Dies in Senate; Defeat for Bush
Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
By ROBERT PEAR and CARL HULSE
Published: June 29, 2007
WASHINGTON, June 28 — President Bush’s effort to overhaul the nation’s immigration policy, a cornerstone of his domestic agenda, collapsed Thursday in the Senate, with little prospect that it can be revived before Mr. Bush leaves office in 19 months.
The bill called for the biggest changes to immigration law in more than 20 years, offering legal status to millions of illegal immigrants while trying to secure borders. But the Senate, forming blocs that defied party affiliation, could never unite on the main provisions.
Rejecting the president’s last-minute pleas, it voted, 53 to 46, to turn back a motion to end debate and move toward final passage. Supporters fell 14 votes short of the 60 needed to close the debate.
Mr. Bush placed telephone calls to lawmakers throughout the morning. But members of his party abandoned him in droves, with just 12 of the 49 Senate Republicans sticking by him on the important procedural vote that determined the fate of the bill.
Nearly one-third of Senate Democrats voted, in effect, to block action on the bill.
The vote followed an outpouring of criticism from conservatives and others who called it a form of amnesty for lawbreakers.
The outcome was a bitter disappointment for Mr. Bush and other supporters of a comprehensive approach, including Hispanic and church groups and employers who had been seeking greater access to foreign workers.
Supporters and opponents said the measure was dead for the remainder of the Bush administration, though conceivably individual pieces might be revived.
The vote reflected the degree to which Congress and the nation are polarized over immigration. The emotional end to what had been an emotional debate was evident, with a few senior staff members who had invested months in writing the bill near tears.
“The bill now dies,” said Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, who helped write the measure.
The outcome also underscored the challenge that Mr. Bush faces in exerting authority and enacting an agenda as members of his party increasingly break with him and Democrats no longer fear him. Having already given up on other ambitious second-term plans like overhauling Social Security, the administration has little prospect of winning any big new legislative achievements in its final months.
The collapse also highlighted the difficulties that the new Democratic leadership in Congress has had in showing that it can address the big problems facing the nation. In this case, Democratic leaders asserted that the failure of the immigration bill reflected on Mr. Bush, and not on their party.
I was not particularly surprised this morning to see that the New York Times, which at the outset referred glowingly to the immigration proposal as a two-party deal (Senators in Bipartisan Deal on Immigration Bill, NY Times, May 18, 2007) and praised Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy's statesmanship and influence, now highlights that the “Bush immigration bill” has been solidly defeated. In today’s front page story, you didn’t even see that Kennedy played a key role until deep into the story. It reminds me of when Bill Keller, the N.Y. Times' Executive Editor, came to speak in Portland and heralded how his paper had no political agenda and was as balanced as could be. I was tempted to stand up and ask him if he ever read his own paper.
Take a look at the initial part of the NY Times story from today's (June 29) paper and ask yourself if the treatment is balanced:
Immigrant Bill Dies in Senate; Defeat for Bush
Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
By ROBERT PEAR and CARL HULSE
Published: June 29, 2007
WASHINGTON, June 28 — President Bush’s effort to overhaul the nation’s immigration policy, a cornerstone of his domestic agenda, collapsed Thursday in the Senate, with little prospect that it can be revived before Mr. Bush leaves office in 19 months.
The bill called for the biggest changes to immigration law in more than 20 years, offering legal status to millions of illegal immigrants while trying to secure borders. But the Senate, forming blocs that defied party affiliation, could never unite on the main provisions.
Rejecting the president’s last-minute pleas, it voted, 53 to 46, to turn back a motion to end debate and move toward final passage. Supporters fell 14 votes short of the 60 needed to close the debate.
Mr. Bush placed telephone calls to lawmakers throughout the morning. But members of his party abandoned him in droves, with just 12 of the 49 Senate Republicans sticking by him on the important procedural vote that determined the fate of the bill.
Nearly one-third of Senate Democrats voted, in effect, to block action on the bill.
The vote followed an outpouring of criticism from conservatives and others who called it a form of amnesty for lawbreakers.
The outcome was a bitter disappointment for Mr. Bush and other supporters of a comprehensive approach, including Hispanic and church groups and employers who had been seeking greater access to foreign workers.
Supporters and opponents said the measure was dead for the remainder of the Bush administration, though conceivably individual pieces might be revived.
The vote reflected the degree to which Congress and the nation are polarized over immigration. The emotional end to what had been an emotional debate was evident, with a few senior staff members who had invested months in writing the bill near tears.
“The bill now dies,” said Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, who helped write the measure.
The outcome also underscored the challenge that Mr. Bush faces in exerting authority and enacting an agenda as members of his party increasingly break with him and Democrats no longer fear him. Having already given up on other ambitious second-term plans like overhauling Social Security, the administration has little prospect of winning any big new legislative achievements in its final months.
The collapse also highlighted the difficulties that the new Democratic leadership in Congress has had in showing that it can address the big problems facing the nation. In this case, Democratic leaders asserted that the failure of the immigration bill reflected on Mr. Bush, and not on their party.
William
This is in response to Ed's comments regarding controlling the border.
I'd invite you to come to the US-Mexico border and take a took, then tell me just how it can be "controlled". From the Pacific coast at San Diego to the Gulf of Mexico at Brownsville, the border is about 2000 miles of harsh, inhospitable terrain - except where it passes through cities like El Paso/Ciudad Juarez or towns like Calexico/Mexicali. You have the desert between El Paso and San Diego or between El Paso and the Big Bend of the Rio Grande that you have to see to believe. Beople cross in those places, people die, crossing in those places and the Border Patrol patrols those places - yet we have streams, floods of people crossing through'em. Y'gotta SEE to believe.
Border enforcement is only part of the answer. Employer penalties with teeth are another part - mandatory jail time for employers of illegals, confiscation of profits attributable to illegal alien labor.
And that's not enough. We will never control our border with Mexico until Mexican society changes and provides jobs and opportunity for its people. So long as the grass is greener here, we'll have (mostly) Mexican illegals - and the grass will be greener here so long as the Mexican government looks at us as a safety valve and a dumping ground for its problems.
But control the border? Fence isn't the answer, Army isn't, either. Wanna tell me HOW?
A few quick comments from a Republican on the other side of the issue apparently.
First, in response to Bob's query as to "what it is about the phrase 'illegal aliens' that's so hard for some to understand?" It's not that we don't get it, but we're also interested in the word "solution" and scratch our heads as to why that seems to be such a difficult word for much of the Republican base to understand...which at one time included the business community, but now seems to be a target of our brethren.
That said, Bob's absolutely right. Border security alone is a pipe dream - we'll never be able to lock it down. Originally from South Texas, I know what I'm talking about. He's also right that the Mexican government bears much responsibility. I'm less thrilled to read his thoughts on employers, who are grappling with a system rife with doument fraud, yet employers are legally required to accept such bogus documents if they appear to be legitimate.
Some broader thoughts regarding the direction of the other user comments:
Until our nation comes to grip with the fact that America faces a ticking demographic time bomb, the immigration dilemma will never be solved. The native-born workforce is growing older and will soon begin to contract. According to U.N. estimates released in February 2005, the fertility rate in the U.S. is projected to fall below “replacement” level by 2015, declining to 1.9 children per couple. Meanwhile, two incompatible trends are emerging. First, the labor force continues to age. The U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) projects the annual growth rate of the 55-and-older group to grow at four times the rate of the overall labor force the next decade. This group will cycle out of the labor force at escalating rates. By contrast, the annual growth rate of the 16-to-54 year age group will be more or less flat. Second, the U.S. economy keeps generating robust labor demand, creating jobs that go unfilled by native-born workers. If all this seems too fantastic to be true, look at Europe’s population predicament.
Does this mean we shouldn't enforce our laws? Absolutely not. But it does mean that we need to reform in a manner that makes sense for us both from a security and an economic standpoint.
Our economy is generating a half million new jobs every year. But our birth rate is flat, and there are insufficient mechanisms for immigrants to come here legally and fill those jobs - 66,000 H2B visa seasonal work visas, and only 5,000 green cards for more permanent lesser-skilled workers.
So the questions I have for my Republican friends are these: Is sensible reform out of the question? If the speed limit on interstate highways was 15 mph, wouldn't it be broken regularly, and wouldn't we take a serious look at raising it to a commonsense level? Do we really want to wreck our economy (mind you, illegals are 5% of the total employees in the US)? Can you imagine if we removed 1 out of every 20 workers from the economy? Inflation and mass disruption would ensue.
And finally, why is it that we Republicans seem to understand the unsustainable demographic predicament we face with Social Security and Medicare, but turn into "know-nothings" when it comes to immigration and workforce needs?
Not trying to be argumentative, but last Thursday will go down in the books as a dark day for the GOP. And I guess I have to disagree with Rich a bit - precisely because Hispanics aren't yet a solid block for the Democrats, the GOP hurts itself when it appears to be unwelcoming to Hispanics, rather than wooing a future constituency.
Thank you Craig! As a 4th generation farmer/rancher in California, I too am on the "other side" of this issue. We are in dire need of workers, but do not have any "homegrown" who will fill the positions. We know that some of the people that we hire must be illegal, but they have the proper documentation, which puts us in quite a bind legally. We are also constantly demonized in the media for our low wages, yet our customers will not pay a fair price for our produce, which keeps our profit levels marginal at best. (This is a subject for another post!)
The system is broken, and we truly need a "comprehensive" fix - just wish more people would try to understand that.
In reply to Craig and Keri, let me first, if you will, establish my bona fides. I currently live - and have lived for 30+ years - in El Paso, Texas, and was, for a number of years, a Consular Officer at the US Consulate General in Cd. Juarez, Mexico, just across the laughingly so-called river. As a result, I have both "official" experience as well as day-to-day experience of the problem being discussed.
Let me first say that my employer sanction comments had mostly to do with those who _knowingly_ employ illegals, rather than those caught in the I-9 documentation dance. Absent a meaningful system of document validation, the latter group has to rely on the documents presented - they have no choice. But when you have, for example, construction companies working on federal contracts who have hundreds of illegals on their payrolls, it's easy to see there's something not quite kosher about _their_ hiring practices, something that requires investigation and meaningful penalties in the event wrongdoing is established.
Yes, we're faced with a demographic timebomb, as Craig indicates. Already, the Latino/hispanic group forms the largest minority group in the US - and it's growing by leaps and bounds, through both natural increase as well as immigration, both legal and illegal. We've established rules for legal immigration, but are being overwhelmed by those who, for whatever reason, choose to ignore them. And it's precisely that latter group that we must get a handle on - in part by stricter border enforcement, barriers in prime crossing areas, and employer sanctions. But, absent any real change in Mexico that results in better conditions for its people, we're facing a losing battle - like King Canute commanding the tide.
What do we do? I don't know. I know the US-Mexico border is, mostly, uncontrollable away from metropolitan areas, and barely controllable even there, even if we were to beef up the Border Patrol AND station troops strategically along the entire 1950 mile stretch. And that reality is what truly limits our choices.
How can i wipe out windows xp from my laptop and reinstall windows Me -the laptops indigenous software?
I suffer with recently bought a used laptop that is old. The mortal physically I had bought it from had installed windows xp on it, orderly for all that it originally came with windows Me. I want to remove the windows xp because it runs slows on the laptop because it takes up more tribute than the windows Me would. Also I want to transfer windows xp because it is an forbidden copy. So when I tried to ass updates on it, windows would not set up updates because the windows xp is not genuine. [URL=http://auvzclu.instantfreehosting.com]alcatel 1512[/URL]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Answers :
It's best to relinquish [URL=http://nkleoeu.hostific.com/kahulugan-ng-pangungusap.html]kahulugan ng pangungusap[/URL] Windows XP and good upgrade your laptop. It's much better. [URL=http://noxynjc.hostific.com/mccall-winter-carnival.html]mccall winter carnival[/URL] Besides, Windows XP is way [URL=http://youodqx.instantfreehosting.com/4-drawer-antique-white-dresser.html]4 drawer antique white dresser[/URL] better then Windows Me. Windows Me is obsolete and multifarious programs that can run with XP, can't [URL=http://meinoic.hostific.com/2007-fleetwood-pace-arrow-37c.html]2007 fleetwood pace arrow 37c[/URL] vamoose with Me.
------------------------------
all you take to do is addition the windows me disk into the cd drive. then reboot your laptop, when the coal-black [URL=http://illofqa.justfree.com/spruce-grouse-pics.html]spruce grouse pics[/URL] screen with all the info comes up and when it asks u to boot from cd [URL=http://oiujxzn.hostific.com/unityone-federal-credit-union.html]unityone federal credit union[/URL] belt any indication when it tells you to then put from there !!! I RECOMEND SINCE ITS AN ILLEAGLE TEXT TO WIPE [URL=http://pifappi.instantfreehosting.com/remchoke-key-price.html]remchoke key price[/URL] OUT THE [URL=http://xoqzfgh.hostific.com/gagged-utopia.html]gagged utopia[/URL] CONTINUOUS HARD PUSH WHEN IT ASKS YOU WHICH STIFF [URL=http://gedeauu.hostific.com/cessna-skymaster-fusalage-details.html]cessna skymaster fusalage details[/URL] PROD TO INSTALL IT ON. THEN UNITE ALL THE FREE SPACE ON THE WASTE [URL=http://aoryvuo.hostific.com/transgender-nail-salons.html]transgender nail salons[/URL] REALISTIC CONSTRAIN ONTO A UP TO DATE ORDER FINGERS ON, IT INCLINATION LOOK LIKE C:/ Open or something like that
Post a Comment
<< Home